Both are condescension and both stances deter rational discussion. It has nothing to do with hurt feelings and everything to do with killing discourse entirely. Being neither liberal or conservative, the minute either party tries to shove their belief into my head I'm more likely to shut it out completely rather than contemplate the merits of what I am being told.

In other words, everybody resents it when they are spoken down to.

That's gotta be the most intelligent post I've read in this whole thread.

+1

Logged

If the road home crosses any landscape features that include words like "forgotten," "void," "razorthorn," "shadowmist," or "doom," then I vote that we take a nap first.

Nope. By all means argue against any injustices you see, even if they are done to another ethnicity and not your own. Just don't be condescending to that ethnicity and argue on their behalf out of empathy. You don't have empathy for that which you've not experienced.

Quote

You would've been a real credit in the civil rights era, unlike these guys, who died attempting to remedy social injustice.

Oh come on, how about you just grow some balls and call me a racist already. I mean how dare I come out and say that someone should be judged based on the arguments he makes rather than the color of his skin?

Nope. By all means argue against any injustices you see, even if they are done to another ethnicity and not your own. Just don't be condescending to that ethnicity and argue on their behalf out of empathy. You don't have empathy for that which you've not experienced.

I'm confused by your terminology, apparently - empathy is the act of envisioning yourself in someone else's shoes. It's a laudable trait. One does not need to have experienced a particular situation to empathize with people who face that situation.

I see - so, you're going to a wikipedia definition of sympathy to try to understand the meaning of empathy. The "sharing" in your wikipedia citation is not a literal sharing, it's an emotional sharing. Sympathy can be emotionally removed - "Oh, I feel bad that his house burned down." Empathy is projection - "That's terrible that his house burned down - if my house burned down, I'd have a hard time pulling things together until I'd at least dealt with the insurance company, found a place to rent, and bought some new work clothes."

A more authoritative source for definitions, the OED:

empathy - The power of projecting one's personality into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation.

Hopefully we've cleared up your misunderstanding. That doesn't, of course, change your bizarre intimation that one can't empathize with someone unless one directly experiences the exact same situation.

You're amazingly literal. Did you really claim to have a philosophy degree earlier in this thread?

Your overarching point appears to be that people shouldn't (can't?) work for social justice on behalf of oppressed classes/races/groups unless they, too, are members of that same class/race/group. That's obviously a stupid supposition, as it's been disproven many many times in the past by courageous work during the civil rights movement, Stonewall and the gay rights movement, etc.

Your overarching point appears to be that people shouldn't (can't?) work for social justice on behalf of oppressed classes/races/groups unless they, too, are members of that same class/race/group.

Perhaps you should read my posts more closely:

Quote from: cheeba on April 21, 2008, 03:25:26 AM

By all means argue against any injustices you see, even if they are done to another ethnicity and not your own. Just don't be condescending to that ethnicity and argue on their behalf out of empathy. You don't have empathy for that which you've not experienced.

"You don't have empathy for that which you've not experienced" is a false statement. "[Don't] argue on their behalf out of empathy" is a nonsensical statement. Empathy is why people act on other's behalf even if doesn't directly benefit their own personal interests.

So that prime example in Bowling for Columbine of Moore editing Charlton Heston speeches together to misrepresent what Heston was truly saying isn't a "core fundamental misrepresentation"?

Sure it is, but misrepresentation of a crazed actor who is being used as a figurehead isn't the same as misrepresenting a philosopher or scientist who actually knows what he is talking about.

That actor chose to be the spokesman for the NRA because he believes in it. You speak of the NRA as if they are some shadowy backroom smoke and mirrors group. They are actually made up of 4 million citizens, and you can join any day you want and participate. I was a recruiter for the NRA an signed up many folks. I did it in my own time, but the NRA sent me materials and the like. It was my time and energy expended by my own choice. Charton Heston's time and energy by his own choice contributed to the cause as well.

You'd think you'd be a better shot then. *zing!* (goes back to non-politcal forums in a hurry)

Brendan. Or should I vote for Cheeba in this thread because I can vote for the other in the WW thread. Think this is getting out of hand a bit? Kumbaya? But really, all the ad hominem is irritating. You aren't going to change each other's minds and it's coming across as more of a , than anything that is going to sway anyone in the peanut gallery.